It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If we kill the Electoral College

page: 5
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2019 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

To me I guess it really means you don't understand and I am disappointed in that you really don't care to discover things by studying their history. I would prefer more sound logic if I were one of you.




posted on May, 27 2019 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

I know exactly how it works. I'm not talking about the how, I'm talking about results in real life.

How did the EC actually protect the people from a tyrannical US government in those 5 instances in which it made a difference?

The first one is the best example against the hype, the election of 1824. Both candidates were from the same party and both ended up serving as president anyway.


edit on 27-5-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Why, yes, yes it has been every single one of 'em. Because that's how it was designed to work.

When did civics become "not a thing" in school? Jesus, I learned this stuff in the fourth grade, and had it reinforced quite often afterwards...

I'm slightly appalled.



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 01:30 PM
link   
yes, we should get rid of the EC we should also stop sending food to other states, or comerce in general, why should I slave and work for people that just "pay" for stuff they did not create. it's the same thing. You should only have that what you have made, not buy it from someone elses labor, thats just slavery and bigoted against working people.


(did you hear the sarcasm?)


the "EC" doesn't "do" anything, by this logic we should have no law officers either, they only show up after the fact anyways, right?

I should not have to buy car insurance either, I have not had an accident in 45 years, why should I pay for something I never use?

is ANY of this making sense yet?

If you don't like the EC why stay in America at all, why not leave and start your own country, Leve mine alone.

Are you to cowardly to do so? or would that be "too much" effort.

I'm willing to put my life on the line for what I believe in, why aren't you?



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

"Doesn't do anything" is not the same as "hasn't really ever made much of a difference".

Where are all the examples of it saving the day?

ETA: You don't have to be pro or anti EC to point out the fact that it has only made a difference in 5 elections.

One more thing: The whole "America love it or leave it" thing is part of the hype I was talking about.



edit on 27-5-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Hopefully not appalled at me for...pointing out the patently, and painfully, obvious fact to another poster who is clearly not as well informed!



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Sir, how can you make such a claim????

The EC has made every single election in this republic a reality since the adoption of the COTUS!

To suggest it has only made a difference in "5 elections" is pure ignorance of not only the Constitution, but the founding principles of the United States of America!

Oh, and one last thing...I'll be the first person to stand up and say..."America, LOVE it or LEAVE it!!!"

AND, I'll back my statement up with...my LIFE! You don't like it, you think it's hype?...THEN LEAVE!!!



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

I'm simply pointing out how valuable rural America is to the cities. Rural America is so different than the sardine cans, the idea that they should not have an equal say in our leadership is pure and utter nonsense. It's like saying wrappings on a car are more important than the drive train.

The country can function without the cities, it can't function without the food, energy and raw materials the cities are built from. Life is different in rural America and the needs and people are different and in the end more important to our countries survival.

The only time anyone suggests doing away with the electoral college is when for partisan reasons, they think it will give them an advantage. Not because it's good for the country, because it would not be.

The absolute scariest thing that could happen to the US, would be for us to come under complete control of a single party. Everyone should be scared of that and if they are not it's because they think it's them who will be in the elite that control everyone. Not one bit better than old rule by royalty that led to people fleeing to live a better way.

When you take a look at just how poorly the large cities have been governed, it boggles the mind anyone would want the whole country under their control. Talk about jumping out of the frying pan into the fire!!!



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 06:12 PM
link   
The literal stupidity of those who seek to abolish the Electoral College is beyond belief. It literally is difficult to grasp that stupidity on this level exists.



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

To me it doesn't really matter if one is pro or anti EC.

The States agreed to it when joining the union by agreeing to the U.S. Constitution.

That Constitution also spells out how to amend it.

An end run around the Constitution will not stand at USSC.



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Hardly.

The fact that apparently civics are no longer a requirement...

I completely agree with you. Rural America is the heart, and all too often, the soul of America. To attempt, as some here are advocating seemingly attempting to bring about a Constitutional crisis (see, I can do it, too..) by circumventing, or trying to, it.

That's what I see as appalling.



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

Even the liberal arm of the Supreme court would look askance at this attempt by some state legislatures, not the people of those states we can be almost positive, to circumvent, or even discard, the Constitution.

I find it, not only appalling, but disgusting.



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: DBCowboy

Al Gore would have won the 2000 presidential election and Hilary would have won 2016 if majority ruled.


Fun fact: Gore and Clinton only won 20 states + DC in their respective elections, compared to W and Trump winning 30 states.

This is why we have the Electoral College. It's not just about the number of people, it's about the regions and cultures.

Bonus point: The President is not a representative or legislator, he/she is an executive. The powers wielded by the President are not directly tied to the People, so the People do not directly elect the President.



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You seem to have a reading comp problem because if the EC agrees with the popular vote then, even though it was part of the process, it doesn't make a difference. The outcome would have been the same with or without the EC. It isn't that hard to grasp.

You little patriotic rant is neither here nor there.



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

Doesn't matter to me either. I never said get rid of it.

I said that it only made a difference in less than 10% of the elections and had it not been in play it would not have made much difference in american history anyway. It sure would not make rural americans into serfs.
edit on 27-5-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I'd have to rethink my positions and whom I support if all the ballot stuffing, illegal voting, gerrymandering, fake news, social network manipulation and criminal activity of those I've previously put into office failed to elect the "chosen" person, now being asked to, condone a direct circumvention of the constitution as a "cheat" in order to win my way.

That is a very bankrupt process of thought and completely immoral way to justify any results.

I'd be embarrassed to say I had any association with anyone doing the above.



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I'd have to rethink my positions and whom I support if all the ballot stuffing, illegal voting, gerrymandering, fake news, social network manipulation and criminal activity of those I've previously put into office failed to elect the "chosen" person, now being asked to, condone a direct circumvention of the constitution as a "cheat" in order to win my way.

That is a very bankrupt process of thought and completely immoral way to justify any results.

I'd be embarrassed to say I had any association with anyone doing the above.



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Hardly.

The fact that apparently civics are no longer a requirement...

I completely agree with you. Rural America is the heart, and all too often, the soul of America. To attempt, as some here are advocating seemingly attempting to bring about a Constitutional crisis (see, I can do it, too..) by circumventing, or trying to, it.

That's what I see as appalling.


In a more general sense, Rural America is an area of the country that has different economic interests than Urban America.

The whole point in the electoral college is to protect people who have different economic interests from being mistreated, if the bare majority happens to have one interest.

You can see this in California, where the urban center around Los Angeles routinely builds canals into the North to siphon off water than is needed by the rural farming communities. (Which is why many Northern Californians are in support of the possibility of splitting California into two states by creating a new state in the Northern part.)


In general, there will always be situations where one group would be tempted to demand that another group give them something, because their differing economic interests ensure the demanding group would be unaffected by it.

Putting say... for example.... a giant tax on factory production because only a small percentage of the population works in factories. A few would have to bear a disproportionately large burden for the group.



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I don't think that claim is accurate or valid because without the EC national political candidates would campaign solely in areas with large populations such as Florida, Texas, California and New York.

The effect would be definitely different and so would results.

Mirror image of that is existence of EC makes difference on issues, platforms and elections whether or not it is invoked.



posted on May, 27 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

If both candidates would shift campaign strategy because of the lack of EC then there still wouldn't be any difference in results?

What I do find interesting is that in a state like nevada, during the 2016 election, two counties nullified the votes of the 15 less populous counties. Did that make the people of those 15 counties serfs? How did the EC help the rural people in that state by giving the EC votes to HRC?



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join